>>9517346

See pic (from the Truth and Art TV twatter).

THE URL CANNOT BE CHANGED, it says. Let me deal with that point:

OK, maybe the URL to the image can't be changed, but the image/file AT that URL CAN be changed (remove old file and upload new file with the SAME FILENAME/URL) - using the Twatter Validation Tool forces the Twitter cache to clear, thus picking up the NEW file at that URL.

Just to add, you can have caches all over, Twitter's, your ISP may do some caching, your browser. Caching is where an item is stored locally (somewhere) so that it is retrieved quicker than going back to the originating server (in this instance) - there are several ways of clearing the cache (FORCING retrieval from the originating server, thus refreshing the locally stored item - if image has changed for example).

As for 'dynami'c - semantics imo. This is a way of semi-dynamically changing the image - in that it may require manual intervention to force the update).

This post is not to discredit Q (as the twatterer is saying), it's about TRUTH (regardless of who posted).

>>9517487

>Q knows how the picture is generated.. Q posted the code.

>

>— my thoughts

I agree with that.

I think anons jumped the gun with the whole 'pic posted before his death' assumption, there's more to it, like being prepared to change the image (hence fore knowledge) or whatever. The 'in depth explanations that I've seen are flawed, but sound plausible to normies.

I've lost count of the number of times people say Q fucked up, then later (future proves past) it makes perfect sense…

>>9517547

I think that's part of it, probably moar…

Look how the whole Belanoff (spl) wierd site slide, with old blog posts lining up with what Q was dropping later. That went to Twatter and elsewhere - a few anons checked and found the dates in the text didn't line up with the file dates, and of course that the domain was created after the date of blog posts…

>>9517563

Not notable, his explanation is flawed.

>>9517609

>>9517451 (me)